Talk:Prime Minister's Literary Awards

Awards Page Layout

Having the winners of each category only appear in the list of nominated books is fine for the first year but is going to be confusing when the second award is presented in 2009. I think we'll need something like the Miles Franklin Award page layout at that time. That page is starting to get unwieldy because of the large number of shortlists and longlists, but that's a fair way down the track for the PM's award. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for starting the article very solidly; I sincerely hope I haven't trodden on turf which is more in your range of competency than mine.

As for going forward: I think the current format here is more economical than the one used in the Miles Franklin Award article, because every title is listed only once here. For the next two or three years, the current scheme can simply be extended by duplicating the current "2008" section; further economics of page space can be achieved by arranging groups in tables where e.g. the fiction/non-fiction details are shown in parallel columns. The sentence under "Panel" and the bulk of the sentence under "Short lists and winners" can be moved up into the lead of the article.

When the page eventually becomes too long, it can be split. For a great example of how one of the biggest prizes is organised, I'll look at the Pulitzer Prize. That article describes the fundamentals and then splits off into categories, e.g. Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, which has a further navigation template ({{PulitzerPrizes}}) which lets the reader navigate to each year's prize, e.g. 2008 Pulitzer Prize. While these pages don't list the short list entries (I don't know if they have one), this scheme could readily be adapted for the PM's Literary Awards. Frankly, I think that's how the Miles Franklin should be organised, too.

Another big prize, the Oscars, go a slightly simpler route: the main article lists the categories, e.g. Academy Award for Best Picture and that article lists all nominations and winners for all years — it's a long page. (In addition, they have an article on each year's ceremony (e.g. 80th Academy Awards), but that's due to the glamour and reach of that broadcast, something the PM's Awards are not likely to achieve soon.)

Anyway, my aim was mainly to reduce duplication of listed entries and devise a scheme that can be extended in future years. On the way, I added some more details as I found them, e.g. the panel composition. The main thing I am not happy about at the moment is the visual weight of the ISBN numbers in the lists. Maybe a table like the draft below might be more pleasing.

Title	Author	ISBN
Burning In	Mireille Juchau	9781920882273
El Dorado	Dorothy Porter	9780330423045
etc.

Of course, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and I certainly don't claim to have the definitive answer to the problems you raised. If you want to revert or modify because you think my modifications were not an improvement, I won't have any bad feelings. On the other hand, I believe a second pair of eyes can sometimes open perspectives to new solutions. All the best, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken about any of this. I'm happy if the general view is that the information is accessible and understandable. And I don't feel that I have any expertise in layout, it's just that I like to be able to see the winners first. And I will check out the Pulitzer. Which brings me to the ISBN numbers. I've always felt these clutter up the lists and would be better relegated to the books' individual pages. I just don't see the point in having them here, even in a table. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the ISBNs — I've removed them. I also added a star () to mark the winners, which I think works quite well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does look good. Hadn't thought of doing that before - using the star. But, then I'm much more of an information grunt than a design expert. Thanks for your work on this.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree looks good. Except isn't the start superfluous with the winners bolded as per usual. Note also things like flag icons to indicate nationality are usually removed.--Misarxist 12:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I agree with the notion to remove extraneous eye candy, but it seemed to me that merely bolding an entry was not quite sufficient to emphasise the winning entry. It's late here now and I'll have another look at it tomorrow. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've now removed the stars (); the winners are not quite as easily seen, but I suppose the reduction of clutter is the upside. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)